Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Anglo Australian Resources NL

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Anglo Australian Resources NL, [2006] NNTTA 50 (5 May 2006)

Application No: WO05/532

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection application

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of Widji People – WC98/27 (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Anglo Australian Resources NL (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            5 May 2006

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence - expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) 148(b)

Cases:Leonne Velickovic on behalf of Widji People/Western Australia/Cazaly Resources Limited, NNTT WO04/185 and WO04/198, [2005] NNTTA 4 (28 February 2005), Hon C J Sumner
Representative of the

native title party: Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd

Representative of the
grantee party: Ms Kellie Hill, Kellie Hill Consulting

Representatives of the

Government party: Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Industry and Resources

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 10 August 2005, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E15/789 (‘the proposed licence’) to Anglo Australian Resources NL (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that the Government party considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 30 August 2005, Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People – Native Title Claim No. WC98/27 registered on 15 June 1998 – (‘the native title party’) lodged an expedited procedure objection application in relation to the proposed licence with the Tribunal (designated WO05/532).

Relevant Facts

On 15 September 2005 the Tribunal made directions requiring all parties to produce contentions and evidence for the conduct of the inquiry to determine whether or not the expedited procedure was attracted. The native title party was to provide a statement of contentions, documentary evidence and witness statements verified where possible by affidavits on or before 10 April 2006. The directions contain a statement that an objection may be dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act if the objector fails within a reasonable time to proceed with the application or to comply with a direction of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal was advised by the representative for the grantee party that agreement was not possible in these matters on 25 October 2005. Accordingly, parties were advised that I would amend the directions for the native title party to comply four weeks after the objection closing date (or four weeks after an inquiry has been requested in circumstances where the closing date has passed). This was in accordance with the Tribunal’s practice to bring compliance dates forward to eliminate the standard 16 week negotiating period in matters where it is clear that agreement cannot be reached (see Procedures under the Right to Negotiate Scheme – 27 January 2005 (paras 3.8.2, 3.9.3) website act/procedures and guidelines) paras 3.8.2, 3.9.3)). As the closing date for objections was 9 December 2001 the amended directions would have required native title party compliance on or before 9 January 2006. Prior to amendment, the native title party representative submitted a request for native title party compliance to be set for March 2006, as he would be unable to seek instructions from his clients owing to ‘Law business’. With the consent of the grantee and Government parties, I allowed the original directions to stand, requiring native title party compliance on or before 10 April 2006.
On 27 April 2006 on application by the Government and grantee parties I dismissed the objection application pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act on the basis of non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions by the native title party for reasons similar to those given in Leonne Velickovic on behalf of Widji People/Western Australia/Cazaly Resources Limited, NNTT WO04/185 and WO04/198, [2005] NNTTA 4 (28 February 2005), Hon C J Sumner (at [12]-[13]). Mr Frewen did not attend the hearing, provided no reasons for his client’s non-compliance and made no application to extend the time for compliance.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO05/532 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993.

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President

5 May 2006

In the Federal Court of Australia, Leonne Velickovic, on behalf of the Widji People, brought an application against the State of Western Australia and Anglo Australian Resources NL concerning a proposed grant of an exploration licence. The Widji People, who claim native title over the land in question, objected to the grant on the basis that it would irreversibly harm their native title rights. The court was required to determine whether the objection application was properly made under the Native Title Act and whether the Widji People had complied with the procedural requirements of the court.

The central legal issue was whether the court should proceed with the objection application despite the Widji People's failure to comply with specific procedural directions given by the court. The court needed to balance the importance of the procedural compliance against the urgency of the matter and the potential harm to the native title rights if the licence was granted without proper consideration. The court held that the failure to comply with the procedural directions was significant and, given the circumstances, warranted the dismissal of the objection application. The court found that the Widji People had not met the necessary procedural requirements to have their objection considered on an expedited basis.

The court dismissed the objection application, ruling that the Widji People had not demonstrated compliance with the procedural directions required by the court. The court noted that the failure to follow the directions undermined the integrity of the legal process and the court's ability to fairly consider the merits of the objection. As a result, the objection application was dismissed, leaving the proposed grant of the exploration licence to proceed. The court's decision emphasised the importance of procedural compliance in native title matters, particularly when dealing with applications that seek to expedite legal processes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established